CAFC Says AFA Properly Used Against Taiwanese Nail Exporter
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against respondent Unicatch Industrial Co. in the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Unicatch failed to act to the best of its ability in submitting cost reconciliation information. The court also said the 78.17% petition rate was realistic as the AFA rate since two sales from Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, the other respondent, exceeded this rate. Lastly, the court said Commerce properly used the expected method in setting the average rate for non-reviewed respondents at 35.3%.